Talk:Jesus

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to a twelve-eared mole rat named Day Creature, footnotes belong in the middle of sentences!

The first paragraph should look like this:

Jesus (c.[e] 6 to 4 BC – AD 30 or 33), also referred[f] to as Jesus Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, and many other names and titles, was a 1st-century Jewish preacher and religious[12] leader in the Roman province of Judaea. He is the central figure of Christianity, the world's largest religion. Virtually all[13] Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament. Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus[g] existed historically. Accounts of Jesus's life are contained in the Gospels, especially the four canonical Gospels in the New Testament. Since[25] the[24] Enlightenment, academic research has yielded[h] various views on the historical[21] reliability of the Gospels and how closely they reflect the historical Jesus.

~2026-23598-8 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: there is no given reason for this change. Please refrain from insulting other Wikipedians just because they refused your edit. GearsDatapack (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm neutral about twelve-eared mole rats. It's not an insult or a compliment. ~2026-23598-8 (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

And I'm not criticising putting footnotes in the middle of sentences. I now think there a good idea hence why I made this edit request. I'm just trying to improve as a Wikipedian. ~2026-23598-8 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Already answered. Move on. Jeppiz (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I was just commenting so people don't assume I'm being mean or something. I'm just trying to be the best Wikipedian I can possibly be. ~2026-23598-8 (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors, I had a couple of recommendations for the lead-in section. Please feel free to disagree with my recommendations. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know.

(1) Instead of "descendant from the Davidic line that is prophesied in the Old Testament", how about it turns into "descendant from the Davidic line as prophesied..." for clarity purposes?

(2) In the seventh sentence, it states that "Jesus was circumcised by a Mohel in a Brit Milah ceremony". But, in the gospels, it only states that "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." (Luke 2:21). I just need to see a scholarly source for the Mohel claim, since it is a very specific claim. The sentence could be the following: "According to Christian tradition, as preserved in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth, was baptized by John the Baptist as a young adult, and, after 40 days and nights of fasting in the wilderness, began his public ministry."

(3) In the eighth sentence, instead of "interpreted the Halakha", it could just be "Jewish law" for clarity: "He was an itinerant teacher whom his followers believed interpreted Jewish law with divine authority".

(4) In the fourteenth sentence, remove the phrase "either before or after their bodily resurrection" and keep this: "The Nicene Creed asserts that Jesus will judge the living and the dead, an event tied to the Second Coming of Jesus in Christian eschatology."

(5) In the seventeenth sentence, you could say "Jewish theology" or "rabbinic Judaism" instead of Judaism. RottenEgg780 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

On item 2, I reverted a recent change. Erp (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. RottenEgg780 (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Thread retitled from Virtually all Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah.WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Virtually all[13] Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ... in the lead: the citation is an article by Pew Research Center among demographics and distribution by country. I don't understand why it is used there. The claim is partly covered in the article's body, but not with the same wording: Most Christians believe that Jesus is both human and the Son of God., with a quoted citation from Ehrman 2014. But the note doesn't explained why the wording "virtually all" or "most" is used, the exception referring to groups such as Arianists or Jehovah's Witnesses. Proposed changes: uniformise wording "most/"virtually all", and explain why a note. Alcaios (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Changed back to "most" as per the body. Nontrinitarianism O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to challenge that change. "Virtually all" appears to be more descriptive and accurate, per the provided link, than "most". The key is the Major Christian Traditions graph, paired with the Defining Christian Traditions article. (Unfortunately, the latter's embedded link is dead; find it here: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/12/19/global-christianity-traditions/#defining). Per Pew's definition, only 1.3% of global Christians would fall into the category of disavowing the statement in question. "Virtually all" seems an accurate description of 98.7%. I recommend restoring the lede to original, and updating the article to match. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Oneness Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarian Universalists, Unitarians, Armstrongists, humanists who believe in the teachings of Jesus, even atheists who believe in the teachings of Jesus, and whatever other Nontrinitarianism folks can all call themselves Christian. Don't know the current law, but in Texas the law stated if a church did not follow trinitarianism it could not be tax-exempt. "Virtually all" is too strong a term and is a part of that kind of exclusionary bigotry. The term "most" is unarguably a valid term -- unless you don't think most believe in the god part. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, decrying “virtually all” because it might be a term used by bigots is a ludicrous stretch - enough so it does not merit a response. It is an objectively accurate way to describe a statistic of 98.7%, and far more descriptive and accurate for the reader than “most”, which only indicates 1 person over 50%. Those groups you mentioned who would actually identify themselves as “Christian”, rather than merely followers of Jesus’ moral teachings or people who happened to like the guy, are numbered amongst the 1.3%, as made clear by Pew. “Most” is too weak a term to reflect reality. I would at minimum argue for “a supermajority” or similar that better indicates well over 50%. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Side note: we’ve previously discussed whether RS definitions of “Christian”, or personally affixed labels, should govern when the two disagree. I do not recall where we landed there. Obviously, Pew would qualify as an RS, and its definition might carry weight, while the Texas legislature’s of course would not. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Either way, it would help to add a note with this figure and provide a few examples of denominations that do not consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son or the awaited messiah. I opened this discussion because both phrasings can be confusing for general readers: what exactly does "most" or "virtually all" mean, and what is the claim referring to? Alcaios (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Agreed on both points. Such a note does exist elsewhere in the article, and perhaps could be added here as well? And, perhaps rather than a qualifier, we should simply use "Over 98%". I just think "most" is too weak and does not adequately reflect RSs. Meanwhile, for the purposes of this statement, we probably should stick to RS definitions of "Christian" - though it does not have to be Pew's. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I cannot find the term virtually all, the number 1.3%, or the definition used in your link. And you say you "paired" two articles. That's WP:SYNTH. So you are taking one source which doesn't actually say what you propose, to narrow the term "most" to "virtually all". It is clear that "most" follows this definition. It is not clear that "virtually all" does. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I truly don't know how you can't find the number 1.3%. That's not condescension; it's confusion. There is a graph entitled "Major Christian Traditions" partway down on the page (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/), which contains the 1.3% figure. (Per the text, the graph does not only cover "major" traditions; rather, it covers all traditions as Pew defines them, and labels the "major" traditions then buckets the "minor" traditions into the "other" category due to size. The text also makes clear that Pew considers all Christians, regardless of tradition or lack thereof, to be represented in the graph.) There is also the statement "Other Christians, such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, make up the remaining 1% of the global Christian population." As for WP:SYNTH, see WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. This is a summary, not a synthesis. Pew puts the definition of "Christian" on a separate page for three reasons: (1) to shorten the length of articles that rely on it; (2) to avoid the need for repeating and maintaining the same definitions on multiple pages; (3) to maintain cohesiveness across multiple articles that rely on that definition. Following a "See definition we used here" reference link is not synthesis - the first page clearly indicates it builds and relies on the material of the second page, and that the authors intended for the two to be used in tandem. Thus, there is no synthetic thesis being produced here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, that's a different page than the previous one you linked to, so your confusion was caused by your own actions. And that graph does not say what you are claiming it says. That graph merely distinguishes 'other Christians' from Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants. There is no indication that 100% of those 'other Christians' reject trinitarianism or insist that Jesus was not both the son of god and of man, not on this page nor on the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Please reread my post. The two links were not supposed to be the same - instead, I provided the links to both pages. As I stated, the first link I provided was to the second "Definition of a Christian" page; the second link I provided was to the RS originally used for "Virtually all". In the kindest possible terms, the confusion is yours. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If some of the 1.7% in the "other Christians" category are trinitarian, doesn't that just strengthen Jtrevor99's point that "most" is too weak a term to describe a belief held by (at minimum) over 98% of Christians as defined by Pew? What percentage range do you think it would take to justify a stronger term? -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 14:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

But how many of the Protestants are nontrinitarian? Many Unitarian fellowships are considered Protestant but nontrinitarian. Also interesting that the chart is titled Major Christian Traditions. That would suggest it excludes minor traditions. Also, this is just traditions, not necessarily what all the people in each wedge actually believe as not everyone believes every part of a wedge into which they have been pigeonholed. Catholics are known for doubt, even some of the most famous. For that matter, large numbers of people join a church purely for social reasons. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

But how many of the Protestants are nontrinitarian? Reading the definitions of terms on the Pew article linked in this thread suggests "very few". How many would need to be nontrinitarian before "most" would become the best way we could describe the numbers?

Also interesting that the chart is titled Major Christian Traditions. That would suggest it excludes minor traditions. I would recommend reading the text that accompanies the chart, as well as the definitions of terms linked in this thread, which both make it clear that Pew includes nontrinitarian groups in their breakdown.

lso, this is just traditions, not necessarily what all the people in each wedge actually believe If we're just speculating about the world I'm inclined to agree with you (humans are famous for their complexity and their proneness to hypocrisy), but for the purposes of editing Wikipedia we should stick with sources and it seems silly to asterisk every ideological group's description with "actually most of them are probably just ordinary blokes who believe vaguely whatever", especially if we are citing no source for that claim. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Because that raises the possibility that all of them may be trinitarians. It also ignores the possibility that various Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic sub-sects may have doctrinal disagreement on the point of Jesus (if not the entirety of trinitarianism) with their parent denomination.

As O3k has pointed out, all Unitarians are considered Protestant. But not all Unitarians are trinitarians. Indeed, not all Unitarians are even deists. There are agnostic and atheist Unitarians out there, and given my own experience with that particular denomination, I would be shocked if there are no Unitarian mythicists.

To directly answer your question, the given number is sufficient, in my opinion. The problem here is that we have not established that the given number is accurate. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Not really. Because that raises the possibility that all of them may be trinitarians. not really, since the Pew article defines their terms on the other page linked in this thread (my bolding):

Other Christian Traditions: Members of other Christian groups self-identify as Christian although older Christian traditions may view them as distinct from mainstream Christianity. Many of these groups – including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Science Church – originated in the United States. These groups often depart from traditional Christian beliefs with respect to the trinitarian nature of God and have additional sacred texts beyond the Christian Bible and/or their own authoritative interpretations of the Bible.

As O3k has pointed out, all Unitarians are considered Protestant. How much doubt does this really introduce? Pew's definition of Protestant is also in the link, and further digging could probably turn up harder numbers, but before we spend a lot of time fetching rocks I'd like to be clear what kind of evidence is actually desired here. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I've already addressed this. The Pew article does not use the specific claim under discussion in their definition. It is possible to be a trinitarian and believe that Jesus was a wholly human vessel for 'the son of god', and it is possible to believe that Jesus was both wholly human and wholly god, without also believing in the Holy Ghost. The claim under discussion is not trinitarianism, but a specific aspect of trinitarianism that is a necessary, but not sufficient component of it.

((tq|How much doubt does this really introduce?}} A lot. A whole lot. That source does not say what percentage of Protestants are Unitarians. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Supposing it did, or supposing another source could be found that did, what numbers would be sufficient for us to consider something stronger than "most"? -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The numbers under discussion would be plenty sufficient, as I mentioned to someone else below. We just need to first establish that those numbers apply to this question, which is where I think the problem is.

If we can get numbers on Christians who specifically hold the beliefs outlined above, then I would (generally speaking, there are still some complexities here) find anything north of about 95% to be sufficient for 'virtually all'. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

That is true; we do not know if the 1.3% is accurate - we only know that a reliable source states 1.3%. Meanwhile, the "Other Christian Traditions" section of the "Defining" page states, among other things, "[The "Other" groups] often depart from traditional Christian beliefs with respect to the trinitarian nature of God ..." and includes several of the groups noted as disagreeing with the doctrinal point in question. We know, then, that Pew included all of the nontrinitarian traditions in the "Other" category. Yes, there are nontrinitarian Unitarians, and I suspect there are at least a few in other Protestant traditions as well. Are these small numbers enough to move the needle much from 1.3%? I doubt it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

That is true; we do not know if the 1.3% is accurate - we only know that a reliable source states 1.3%. No. We only know that a reliable source states that 1.3% of Christians are 'other Christians'. Full stop. That says nothing about trinitarianism, let alone the specific claim under discussion, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll add another problem. Even if you assume that 1.3% is a correct number of actual believers, not just in a classification of what they are supposed to believe, (which I don't), then that's 28,340,000 people. How can we say virtually all do when 28 million don't? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Because almost 2.2 billion - 987 out of every 1000 - do. That's virtually all of them. That's just an objective fact. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider 28,000,000 humans insignificant. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Further, the text says: Most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament. It doesn't say most people belong to religions that teach this. It says they actually believe it. Pew doesn't know their actual beliefs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't consider 28,000,000 insignificant either. "Virtually all" does not indicate significance; it denotes magnitude only. And the statement makes clear it pertains to "Christians", which Pew defines. Of course we don't know people's beliefs, but if we are to use a RS definition of "Christian" - which WP policy mandates - then this statement should follow suit. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say most people belong to religions that teach this. It says they actually believe it. Pew doesn't know their actual beliefs. could you not raise this objection to literally every description of every religious and ideological group on the wiki? This kind of hedging isn't normally done unless we see the sources doing it. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

If we have articles that don't use terms like adherents "generally" believe in x, we should probably look at that. But we are talking about this article now. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

We should avoid turning this discussion into a WP:FORUM. We just need a WP:RS that explicitly says that "most" or "virtually all" Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or a percentage that would explicitly back up that claim (without WP:SYNTH). Perhaps the wording should be changed, e.g. Belief that Jesus is the Messiah and the incarnate Son of God is a defining doctrine of Christianity and is shared by the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations, with secondary sources to back it up. However, it should also be noted that encyclopaedias and reference works do not generally use those criteria to define Christians or Christianity:

• Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, s.v. Christianity: Christianity exists in a vast diversity of different styles and forms of organization, but all are agreed that the figure of Jesus is the disclosure of God and the means of human reconciliation with him. [somewhat inclusive definition, but perhaps better]
• Britannica, s.v. Jesus: At its most basic, Christianity is the faith tradition that focuses on the figure of Jesus Christ. [vague definition] Alcaios (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

We have a source in the article for the 'most' language (the Ehrman source, which I own, if we need more context on it). We don't have a source giving a number, despite the protestations (pun intended, than you very much) of a couple editors here that the 'other Christian' numbers means both 'non-trinitarian' and 'disagrees with trinitarianism about this particular aspect'. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

despite the protestations (pun intended, than you very much) of a couple editors to be clear, if I am one of the "couple of editors" referred to here, I am not protesting such, nor am I necessarily saying that "virtually all" is the best solution. I am agreeing with Jtrevor99 that "most" suggests to my mind a percentage that is a lot smaller than 98%, and I am trying to inquire as to what the sources indicate the lower bound on the percentage actually is. I agree that the Pew definitions aren't absolutely clear, but I think they are clearer than you and O3000 are acknowledging and it seems to me that even with very generous assumptions it's hard to bring the percentage down from 98% to something where "most" is the best we can do. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not protesting such, nor am I necessarily saying that "virtually all" is the best solution Fair enough.

I agree that the Pew definitions aren't absolutely clear, but I think they are clearer than you and O3000 are acknowledging Can you refute the problems I've pointed out? Can you make a case that 'other Christians' is synonymous with belief that Jesus is not the son of god? I'm sorry, but these are critical points here, and if those can't be addressed and nullified (which is possible, if you could find where Pew defines 'other Christians' as being those who reject Jesus' divinity and only include Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians who do accept Jesus' divinity in their count of those denominations), then it's not merely O3k's and my view that Pew's definition isn't clear with respect to this issue, it's a incontestable fact that their numbers simply don't apply here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Can you make a case that 'other Christians' is synonymous with belief that Jesus is not the son of god? Maybe I'm just dense, but I'm genuinely confused by this request. Both I and Jtrevor already linked to Pew's definitions, which clearly state that the 'other Christians' category includes the major nontrinitarian groups, and clear does not state that it contains only those groups, so I feel like this is a settled question, and I'm not clear on how it bears on the matter anyway, since the inclusion of trinitarians in the 'other Christians' category would only help Jtrevor's case. The question of how many nontrinitarians might be included in the other categories is a valid one that I suspect could be answered by searching for other sources but I don't want to waste time looking for those sources if the community here is implacably opposed to the "virtually all" wording anyway. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 15:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

trevor already linked to Pew's definitions, which clearly state that the 'other Christians' category includes the major nontrinitarian groups, and clear does not state that it contains only those groups.

Okay, I have no reason to suspect you are being obtuse in any way, and I can certainly understand why my objections on such a complicated issue could be misunderstood, so I'll lay this out in different words, and be happy to answer any questions if I'm still not being clear enough.

We all agree that 'other Christians' includes the major non-trinitarian groups. That's clear. Whether it includes all non-trinitarian groups is, however, in doubt. We also seem to be in agreement that the other groups may contain an unknown (but presumably small) number of non-trinitarians, as illustrated by O3k and I raising the example of Unitarians.

Now as an aside, I'll admit that though this is a subject of some fascination to me, my primary interest lies in the sciences, where language must be extremely precise, and I bring that view to all topics I edit in. It is that very precision of language which is guiding my position here. I do believe that Wikipedia should be as precise with its wording as a scientific article. (I also believe that WP does not need to be more precise than a scientific article, and that's a position I've argued many times.)

So, I see two possibilities.

1. The Pew source is using less-precise language to make the quite precise claim that 'other Christians' represent all non-trinitarians, and the major denominations (Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox Christians) described in contrast to the represents all trinitarians. To whit, Pew would have lumped all non-trinitarian Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Protestants into the 'other Christian' group. This is definitely possible, but it seems a rather fanciful reading of the source to me, with no evidentiary support.
2. Pew is using precise language for the somewhat less precise work which they did, and they included all denominations of Christianity which distinguish themselves from the three major denominations in 'other Christians', and did not distinguish non-trinitarian sub-sects of Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox Christians from their parent groups. This is most likely what is happening, in my opinion, and it is evidenced by a plain reading of the source.

If the latter case is true, then it might be that 94% of Christians hold the beliefs outlined above (which I've variously characterized as belief that 'Jesus is both wholly human and wholly god,' 'the divinity of Jesus' and in a few other, minor re-wordings of the claims in the article), in which case I would say that the discussion of whether to go with 'virtually all' would be a discussion about stylistic preferences. Indeed, I actually prefer the 'virtually all' verbiage myself, because it's more specific.

The problem I see here is that it might also be that 85% of Christians hold the beliefs outlined above, in which case, 'virtually all' is a complete non-starters. If 15% of a group doesn't hold a certain belief, then we could say that 'most' or 'the majority of' them believe it, or we could say 'generally speaking, they believe it', but I would oppose the 'virtually all' because it is simply inaccurate.

Now, to convince me that 'virtually all' is the best wording, you or the other editor would merely need to show me a reliable source which states that somewhat more than 95% of Christians believe the claims above (varying wording about it is fine, though I would not accept 'trinitarian' as a synonymous term unless the source explicitly defined it that way, for reasons I've outlined above). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Most Christians obviously do believe such. We have no source that says virtually all folks that consider themselves Christian believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah, or Christ, a descendant of the Davidic line prophesied in the Old Testament. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Again, let's not turn this discussion into a WP:FORUM and focus on closing the issue. Proposed wording: Christians believe that Jesus is the disclosure of God and the means of human reconciliation with him [Oxford Dictionary of World Religions], and most of them or and all major Christian denominations consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah [Ehrman] + [short note with a few notable denominations that do not agree with that, to clarify that sentence]. Alcaios (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm actually okay with taking out the qualifier in that first sentence. It's generally true that Christians believe that. I would prefer that we give specific numbers, but that doesn't seem to be possible. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I prefer the status quo which is informative without making any claims we cannot source. I don't think we should source a dictionary. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Well it's not a dictionary in the sense Webster's or Collins are dictionaries. It's a reference work edited by John Bowker and published by Oxford University Press. Cf. Oxford Dictionary of World Religions Alcaios (talk)

Sounds extremely closed minded. And most only means greater than 50% when there are only two options. There are a huge number of options. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue was originally raised by me because the sentence states that virtually all or most Christians consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah. From an American perspective this may seem self-evident, but from a European standpoint it is not necessarily obvious, since there are no significant denominations in Europe that reject this belief. Nontrinitarian movements are virtually non-existent here. That is why I suggested adding a brief clarifying note. The distinction between most and virtually all is mostly semantic and doesn’t really change the original issue. Alcaios (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's more than semantic. Virtually all discounts the many entire religious organizations that don't preach this and the many more members of the major denominations who don't believe every preached word. Even St. Thomas, Mother Teresa, and Pope Francis had doubts. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Due to an emergent family issue, I won't be able to (reliably) participate further in this discussion. My apologies and carry on. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no clear use of the actual Hebrew name "Yeshua" in the beginning of this article. It is only mentioned in later on in another section. Shouldn't we use the name he was actually called during his time? SatoruVijnani (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

If you look at footnote "[e]" after the first word Jesus, yes there is, though in Hebrew letters. No, we use what's the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language WP:RS. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, btw. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. But shouldn't it be more clearly shown or acknowledged. Vast majority of people do not know that Yeshua was his actual name (Aramaic/Hebrew) and believe that Jesus was his actual name. Even though it is mentioned later on and Jesus is the common name according to WP:COMMONNAME , shouldn't his real name be given more prominence and at least be mentioned in the beginning, for more historical accuracy and for common folks to know. SatoruVijnani (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

IMO, the current writing fits WP:LEAD. Jesus#Name is the first section in the article, and that's fairly prominent, and there's more at Jesus (name). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

There's no harm in mentioning it, right? SatoruVijnani (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

He probably spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic, and anyway, ישוע is written the same in both languages. Vegan416 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that we should make use of footnote "[e]" for this purpose. BobKilcoyne (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

While it is already known that the scholarly consensus is AD 30 or 33 (because of when Passover was), the thing is that Jesus was crucified on either 7 April 30 or 3 April 33. 2:1 scholars agree with the former, but that's not the debate I'm trying to settle. In the lead, Jesus' span is given as having ended in either AD 30 or 33, but it is realistically needed on 7 April AD 30 or 3 April AD 33. Of course we can't say for certain which one it was, it's just the way the lead is written now implies that Jesus could have died anywhere between January and December of AD 30 or 33. That's simply not true, it was 100% either 7 April AD 30 or 3 April AD 33.

Should we change it to say he died on either of those two dates, or keep it at saying he died in AD 30 or 33? MountainJew6150 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that detail fits the body (Jesus#Chronology), it's fine not to have it in the WP:LEAD or infobox. That section hints there might be other dates suggested, but I don't know if that's so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång on this. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:27, 24 February 2026 (UTC)